Ubisoft ORIGINALS and other oxymorons. | Forums

[FCacGRdvWD]

Ubisoft says it’s changing strategy to focus on more ‘high-end free-to-play’ games

Personally, here is where they lost me and my interest was gone from reading further. Unfortunately, and herein lies the problem for me, we will have to wait for them to launch to know how crappier this is from the normal half assed AAA jobs at full price and by then, like it has happened before, it will be to late to turn the ship around and/or steer it in the right direction or the direction that the hardcore community knows it should be.

But Kudos I guess.

[El_Cuervacho]

I'm not a fan of the free-to-play concept. How does one make a free-to-play hardcore tactical shooter game without turning it into a looter shooter since free-to-play's profits are in monetization?

Well, one doesn't.

[dagrommit]

This along with the news that Skull and Bones has slipped again wiped 11% off the share price today.

The Breakpoint fiasco and games getting into development trouble are why they're going this route. It's more predictable revenue. It's also why they're extending the life of existing games with new content - less risky than developing a new game from scratch.

I don't see any good Ghost Recon game coming from a F2p battle royal foundation

Destiny 2 and Warframe demonstrate that you can make a successful F2P game that isn't BR. Base game is free, and additional expansions cost money.

[Steven527]

I'm not a fan of the free-to-play concept. How does one make a free-to-play hardcore tactical shooter game without turning it into a looter shooter since free-to-play's profits are in monetization?

Well they couldn't do a normal game release of a hardcore tactical shooter without converting it to a looter shooter so I guess the answer is they don't see the problem.

[fastastoast]

A few take homes for me here, based on current form the 'orginals' will be a handy way to know which games to avoid. The depth of the their marketing nonsense has gotten completely absurd. And the only way this could benefit GR is to spilt ghost wars into a F2P, which it's a bad idea. If, they keep it 'hardcore' and 'tactical'.

[Rafi-KtC]

So many things can happen...
I'm a fan of the GR and R6 of the past, and maybe because I'm not so faithful to the world of GR like some of you are I wouldn't care to see something similar being developed by another company with a new title.

As for F2P if done right you can make it succeed. If the game is PVE and the player buys more "power" then it's not a matter of pay to win, but it's "pay to show off" - unless there's some sort of scoreboard.

Warframe did it right in the sense that you pay to get things faster, but you can have 99% of the content without spending a single cent. I personally used the trade system to get rich and buy everything that could be bought. What frustrated me is that they were constantly tweaking things, nerfing guns and habilities and sometimes reworking other things. But that's another topic.

I can imagine a GR game that is free with very good stories and campaigns and still making money with Cosmetics, air drops, mercenaries, air support, black market, etc

It's probably not gonna happen... But it's possible

[AI BLUEFOX]

A free to play GR fills me with dread. I want to play the game not spend time chasing stuff to be able to play the game. I don't even want the influence that progression brings, because it seeps into the mission design, the gameplay mechanics and the fabric of the game.

I will pay a premium one-off or a monthly service charge to play a high quality GR based on the principles we put in the charter. I want a grounded, serious and engaging game for tactical thinking players who love teamwork whether that's in coop with others or with your own capable and controllable AI team.

[FCacGRdvWD]

Destiny 2 and Warframe demonstrate that you can make a successful F2P game that isn't BR. Base game is free, and additional expansions cost money.

Are these 2 companies you are mentioning own by Ubisoft, otherwise your point is, well, you don't have one for obvious reasons. And just in case you don't know what I am talking about all you have to look is at Ubi's history with lack of effort and mediocre or unfinish game. Hell, I will even give you a chance to toss BP out of the equation just because I don't even know in which category of crap BP is.

[dagrommit]

Are these 2 companies you are mentioning own by Ubisoft, otherwise your point is, well, you don't have one for obvious reasons. And just in case you don't know what I am talking about all you have to look is at Ubi's history with lack of effort and mediocre or unfinish game. Hell, I will even give you a chance to toss BP out of the equation just because I don't even know in which category of crap BP is.

Maybe you should read the quoted text next time? Keltimus thought that GR was going to become a F2P Battle Royale game. I am pointing out that F2P games do not have to be Battle Royale.

You can assume that a Battle Royale is all Ubi can think of, but that might be premature given they haven't even announced another Ghost Recon game, F2P or otherwise.

Or put another way, there's as much evidence that Breakpoint could be the last Ghost Recon game as there is that it'll become a F2P BR - i.e. none

[Keltimus]

Destiny 2 and Warframe demonstrate that you can make a successful F2P game that isn't BR. Base game is free, and additional expansions cost money.

Those games are looter shooters not hardcore tactical shooters. So I say again, I don't see any GOOD Ghost Recon game if Ubisoft pushes F2p into this IP